Monday, November 02, 2009

Naked Pumpkinhead joggers are sex offenders say police.

This video depicts a rather odd Halloween activity in Boulder, Colorado. It is the annual Naked Pumpkinhead Run where naked joggers put a pumpkin on their head and run through the streets. What you will see above is last year's Run. This year it didn't happen. Apparently this silly prank is not consider a "sex crime" by the local police and anyone caught in this activity will be arrested as dangerous sex offenders. Anyone still think those sex offender registries actually mean anything? According to the Wall Street Journal the police chief has decided to crack down on this horrible crime.
So he intends to stop it.

He will station more than 40 officers on the traditional four-block route tonight, with two SWAT teams patrolling nearby. All have orders to arrest gourd-topped streakers as sex offenders.
Last year the police also decided to act but only ticketed runners and most charges were later dropped or reduced to disorderly conduct. This year the police chief decided that the runners were actually dangerous sex offenders who had to be apprehended. According to the report the entire city council and the mayor all disagree with the actions of the police. But since when do elected officials make the rules? In the new America the police make the rules. What do they call that again?

Also consider that nudity per se is not actually illegal in Boulder. The Journal writes, "the city has had a long, proud history of nudity." So the police, who now run the town apparently, decided that the run amounts to indecent exposure—once again the idea that the human body is indecent, a very sick concept if you think about it, has reared its very ugly head. That laws states that it is a crime to expose one's genitals in circumstance "likely to caused affront or alarm." Please note that only the genitals can be exposed in such a manner. Quite honestly I suggest more fists have been displayed in a way that causes alarm than genitals but waving a fist in public is not a crime.

The absurdity of the police threat is that they know this run does not cause "affront or alarm." In fact, it is held late at night, after children have gone to bed. And the streets line up with people there with the purpose of watching the run. Clearly the throngs of willing viewers are neither alarmed or affronted.

The Journal also reports: "Those convicted of indecent exposure rarely get jail time, but they must register as sex offenders, just as rapists do. Which seems a bit excessive to Boulder Country District Attorney Stan Garnett."

Remember that these Pumpkinhead joggers would be registered sex offenders. They would be listed in the registry with their photos and their home addresses listed. They would be restricted on where they could live. They would be forbidden to have certain jobs. They would be required to register with the police and forbidden to engage in Halloween activities in the future—due to allegedly being a threat to children.

Three people, wearing shorts did run on Halloween night. Police, couldn't see what was happening for sure and that prompted "officers to descend on the area." With SWAT teams on the ready to arrest joggers, and hell, maybe shoot a few for sport, the police were ready. They also simply closed parking garages so people had no where to park and couldn't attend the party. Police even were stationed on rooftops to keep an eye out for Naked Pumpkinheads.

Remember that these joggers would have been listed for indecent exposure. They would have been listed int he same category as a flasher masturbating in front of a group of shoppers. When you read the "offense" in the registry the wording is always kept vague and general so readers DO NOT KNOW the actual circumstances, even if they think they do. In one case a man who had been listed as an offender for being too aggressive with an adult woman was murdered by a neighbor. The neighbor said he had to do kill the man since he was on the registry that meant the man was a threat to the children in the neighborhood. In Maine, a teen who had consenting sex with his girlfriend, was put on the registry. He was later executed on his doorstep by a vigilante who pulled his name and address off the web site for sex offenders.

Just this week I read a story in my local paper of a man who was arrested and found guilty of sexually molesting a boy. What caught my attention was that the offense was vaguely listed and it said that the "crime" could have taken place in 1974. Based on the man's age that would have made him 12-years-old at the time. Decades ago, as a child himself, he "molested" another kid and now will be listed on the sex registry with a current photo. We don't know the circumstances of the offense because, as usual, the facts are hidden from the public. But when people see the photo they will see a guy in his late 40s, and read he molested a child. Few will know he was child and none will know the circumstances.

Why do people think this registries actually provide useful information?

Labels: ,